Talk:Marines Callous
Sorry Rage, but we have a polocy of no 2nd Founding Chapters and any Chapter over the 1000 limit has to have a good reason and that has to be run by an Admin. Trulyrandom (talk) 00:38, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Excuse me NecrusIV and Trulyrandom, but what gives you the right to edit my articles? I feel that I am allowed to have a second founding chapter. The canon says nothing against it RageAgainstTheMan (talk) 00:57, May 16, 2013 (UTC) It's Wiki rules, all known Chapters that where created 2nd founding are clearly stated within Cannon. And Necrus just put a Template there, it's so that we can keep easier track of what articles need to be altered. Trulyrandom (talk) 01:17, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Total you didn't have to literally change it (not second), too coy man. But there are rules that the site has established Rage. And yes, 2nd Foundings are not allowed because then everyone would make one and they are all known as it is. The addition of certain tags and categories are nessecary under certain cirumstances, like if it violates the wiki's rules. As Admins they can do that, as is their job. Dont take it personally, no one means offense. Regards -DirgeOfCerberus111 (talk) 01:33, May 16, 2013 (UTC) http://www.wikia.com/Terms_of_Use < These say NOTHING about rules established by Admins that must be followed. In fact, I could possibly take you editing my article as a form of impersonation or abuse. I can write what I want. RageAgainstTheMan (talk) 01:35, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Oi vey. This is a serparate wiki, it has its own guidelines to make articles work in the universe of 40k. Of which some things cannot happen, including chapters of the 2nd Founding and those with more than 1000 marines. So no, this cannot be taken as abuse. There was no vandalism, save perhaps for the previous edit made by Total pertaining to its founding, yeah, that wasn't cool. Adding the tags is actually good, otherwise as part of a ongoing site-wide purge, all articles lacking basic templates are deleted. Its just a massive overdo cleanup of the wiki. So you were just save the trouble of putting it up yourself with the Quality Control Template simply states any problems. Regards -DirgeOfCerberus111 (talk) 01:50, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Just to point this out. You are allowed to have over 1000 marines in your Chapter. However before doing so you have to write an Admin and explain the reason for the increased numbers. If the Admin approves you are golden. However I should point out that a Chapter can not possess any higher than 2000 marines even with special permission. Furthermore the higher the increase in number the more convinci8ng the circumstances have to be for an Admin to approve it. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 04:20, May 16, 2013 (UTC) This won't last long. The article is full of rule breaking; *Specialised chapter commissioned by the Emperor *Second founding *6800 marines And an author who is ignoring the rules, that's something (or someone?) else that won't be lasting long/ --Imposter101 (talk) 06:37, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Ahem. Wikia's policies don't enforce anything of that manner. The policy doesn't say you have to follow the admin's or community's rules of advice. I understand that we cannot abuse or intimidate people, but the rules are rules. I doubt enforcing your own rules to restrict the writing of new users to your own predetermined standard of "acceptance" is very nice. RageAgainstTheMan (talk) 06:51, May 16, 2013 (UTC) While I shall take your side in this, my fellow users, about no 2nd Founding chapters and no chapters to exceed 1000 marines. I would like to point out that there should be boundaries to what you are doing. For instance, the property template clearly states that users should not edit other users articles without their permission, something which I have seen clearly ignored in this case and many others. I thought that the main point of the talk page was to address the problems of an article so the author may fix the problems themselves, and if they don't it is time to, for instance, slap a "Article Needs Improvement" template on the thing. Not just go around, lurking to see if an article has a mistake, and go slapping article needs improvement templates or editing their work so that it fits YOUR standards, Necrus I'm looking at you. I thought that the user has right over their article, and its their ideas that are being used for said article. How do you know that the founding you changed it to was the right one? Maybe Rage would have changed it to different one! My point is that you shouldn't take things into your own hands when you've barely given the user a chance to fix the problems you have addressed, thanks. Ave Dominus Nox! (talk) 11:53, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Ok, WHY has this article been deleted? It hasn't even been on the site for 24 hours yet, and we've destroyed it. Great work at introducing a new member guys. Trulyrandom (talk) 16:06, May 16, 2013 (UTC) If you guys have issues with how the articles was deleted then take it up with our monarch. Dark Seer personally deleted it. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 22:06, May 16, 2013 (UTC) Supah, I find it hard to justify this action. Rage was new. Yes, he was rude and obnoxious, but it's all to easy to feel put out when you first arrive, especially as many of the comments we made didn't exactly come across as friendly. Now, if he had refused to budge for a few days, fine, but he was on the Wiki for less than 24 hours and has had his first article destroyed and appears to have been banned. He has had no time to learn the ropes, and no one as given him a chance. This is unjust, especially considering how we have dealt with other Users who have been just as bad, or worse, in the past. Trulyrandom (talk) 22:55, May 16, 2013 (UTC) True. He wasn't given much of a chance before his article was deleted. Though I ould point out that belligerence aside his refusal to accept site rules was unnacceptable. Anyway I am not the one you should be talking to. Like I said, Dark Seer personally deleted this article. You should take it up with him. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 00:32, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Well, I'm dropping the issue as I found out in Chat last night that he put his article forward to be deleted and voluntarily left, so yea. Trulyrandom (talk) 11:02, May 17, 2013 (UTC)